Zevachim 113a — the Talmud in English

b

Laying of hands

upon the offering,

and slaughtering on the north side, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

and application

of the blood

around

the altar, with two applications that are four ,

and waving

and bringing near

of meal-offerings to the altar—all these are practiced on a communal bama but not on an individual bama.

Rabbi Judah says: There is no meal-offering

brought

on a bama

at all! [Even on a communal bama ].

The Mishna continues to detail the laws distinguishing a communal bama from an individual bama:

And priesthood,

service through kohanim ,

and service garments,

priestly garments,

and service vessels

41, and pleasing fragrance

for it is forbidden to roast the limbs before placing them upon the altar, for if he roasts them before placing them on the altar, they do not have “pleasing fragrance” when he later places them upon the altar; but on a bama it is permitted to place them upon it, because it is not necessary to have the intention concerning them “for the sake of fragrance” ,

and a partition for the blood,

the red line that was in the middle of the height of the altar, in order to distinguish between blood applied above and blood applied below,

and washing of hands and feet,

all these are not practiced on an individual bama.

But the time,

the disqualification of the offering and its pigul due to an intention concerning beyond its time, and

the leftover,

liability for karet for eating what was left over from the offering after its eating time ,

and the impure,

the liability for eating impure flesh, or that an impure man is disqualified for offering and eating , these laws

are equal

in both

in this and in that!

On an individual bama and on a communal bama.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The red heifer of purification that he slaughtered outside its designated enclosure.”

And we raised the issue:

What is ‘outside its enclosure’?

What place is disqualified for its service, such that the tannai needed to inform us that if he performed it there he is not liable on account of slaughtering outside? For surely it is not disqualified merely because he performed it outside the place prepared for it. And we explain:

Reish Lakish said: Outside the place examined for it.

For he slaughtered it in a place that was not examined beforehand to ascertain that there was no deep grave there; and it is stated concerning the red heifer that it must be made in a pure place .

Rabbi Yohanan said to him

to Reish Lakish:

But is not all the Land of Israel examined

for impurity!?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said: For example, he slaughtered it inside the wall

of Jerusalem, for this is not the place where it is to be performed, as it is written, “and he shall bring it outside the camp” .

And we raised the issue:

And let

Rabbi Yohanan establish it as referring to, for example,

he slaughtered it outside the wall,

which, although it is the place where it is to be performed, is nevertheless invalid when it was slaughtered

not opposite the entrance

of the Sanctuary.

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance, it is invalid, as it is stated, “and he shall slaughter

—and he shall sprinkle,”

slaughter was compared to sprinkling, to teach that

just as its sprinkling

is explicitly stated to be

opposite the entrance, so too its slaughter

shall be

opposite the entrance 48.

And should you say that Rabbi Yohanan does not compare slaughter to sprinkling, and he validates it when slaughtered not opposite the entrance, and therefore he needed to establish it as referring to one who slaughters inside the wall,

but it was stated: If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance, Rabbi Yohanan said: It is invalid

because he learned it by analogy from

“and he shall slaughter

—and he shall sprinkle.” Reish Lakish said: It is valid,

for it is written,

“outside the camp he shall slaughter it,”

which implies that slaughter is valid anywhere, provided that it is outside the camp.

And it was likewise stated: If he burned it not opposite the entrance, Rabbi Yohanan said it is invalid, and Rabbi Oshaya said it is valid.

And the reason for their dispute is:

Rabbi Yohanan said it is invalid

because it is stated,

“and he shall burn”

—“and he shall sprinkle,”

to compare burning to sprinkling, concerning which it is explicitly stated that it must be opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary.

And Rabbi Oshaya said it is valid; the verse says, “upon its refuse it shall be burned,”

and we derive:

The place where it departs for death,

where its life leaves it at the completion of its convulsions—namely, even if it is not opposite the entrance, for no place was designated for the departure of its life—

there shall be its burning.

If so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yohanan not establish our Mishna as referring to a case in which he slaughtered the red heifer outside, not opposite the entrance, when according to his view it is invalid?

And we answer:

They said,

Rabbi Yohanan

was stating not only this:

he came to teach a novel point—that it is not only if he slaughtered it

outside the wall

that it is invalid,

for

it has

distanced itself greatly

from opposite the sanctity.

Rather, even inside the wall, for it has drawn close

to the place of sanctity,

and one might say it should become valid; it teaches us

that it is invalid, because it must be slaughtered specifically “outside the camp” .

The Master said: Rabbi Yohanan said to him

to Reish Lakish:

But is not all the Land of Israel examined.

And we raised the issue:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, who disagreed over whether the Land of Israel is examined or not—over what do they disagree, and what is the reason of each one?

And we explain:

One master,

Reish Lakish,

holds: The

Flood descended upon the Land of Israel,

and the bones of the dead from the Flood sank into it, and there is concern for impurity everywhere.

And one master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: The Flood did not descend

upon the Land of Israel, and consequently it is examined for impurity .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And both of them expounded one verse:

and each explained it according to his position: "

“Son of man, say to it: Are you not a purified land? It was not rained upon on the day of wrath.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan held: The verse expresses astonishment,

and thus it is stated as a question:

“Land! Why are you not pure? Did rain descend upon you on the day of wrath!?”

That is, during the days of the Flood.

And Reish Lakish held:

that it is read

according to its plain meaning,

as a statement of repose:

“Land, you are not pure! Did rain not descend upon you on the day of wrath?”

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Behold, we learned in tractate Parah [3b] that they were stringent concerning its purity, and therefore,

courtyards in Jerusalem were built upon rock, and beneath them

beneath the rock there was

a hollow, because

they were concerned lest beneath the rock there be

a grave of the abyss,

and through the hollow an interruption was made, so that the impurity no longer rises upward.

And they would bring

to those courtyards

pregnant women,

and they would give birth and raise there

their

sons for the parah.

For the children [seven- and eight-year-olds] who were born and raised there while being guarded from impurity, and they would draw the water of purification and sprinkle it upon the kohen who burned the red heifer.

And when they wished to go and draw living water from the Shiloaḥ,

they would bring oxen,

and upon them

doors in order to separate between the children and the ground, so that they would not overhang the grave of the abyss when going to the Shiloaḥ,

and children would sit upon them, with stone cups in their hands.

For this is one of the stringencies of purity: that all the actions of the parah be performed with utensils that do not contract impurity, and a stone utensil does not contract impurity.

They reached the Shiloaḥ, descended and drew [the water]. They ascended and sat in their places.

Behold, we learned explicitly in the beraita that the Land of Israel is not examined because of concern for the grave of the abyss, and this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan?

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They made a stringency concerning the parah,

to be concerned initially for the grave of the abyss, since it is performed by a kohen who immersed that day [they would render the kohen impure on the day of burning the parah and immerse him, in order to remove from the minds of the Sadducees, who would say that the parah is not performed by one who immersed that day; and so that they would not treat it lightly, they instituted many stringencies of purity concerning it]. But if he slaughtered it in a place that was not examined, it is valid after the fact according to fundamental law, for all of the Land of Israel is examined, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It was taught:

There was an incident, and they found bones in the Chamber of the Wood Shed

that was in the Temple,

and they sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: “Is it not shame and disgrace for us to decree impurity upon the city of our fathers!?”

And is Jerusalem not purer than other places

? Where are the dead of the Flood? Where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar?

For they are not found here, while they are found in other places

? And Rabbi Yoḥanan infers:

From the fact that he said “

Where are the dead of the Flood?” does this not mean that they did not exist

in the Land of Israel—the dead of the Flood?! And this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who said that the Land of Israel is not examined because of concern for the dead of the Flood?

Reish Lakish replied to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

And according to your reasoning,

that you explained Rabbi Yehoshua’s intention in saying “Where are the dead of the Flood?” to be that they had never been there, would you say this concerning

those slain by Nebuchadnezzar,

that

here too they did not exist

in the Land of Israel ever

? Rather,

perforce, just as we explain the claim “Where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar,” namely, that indeed

they existed

initially

and were directed

to a cemetery.

Here too,

what Rabbi Yehoshua said, “Where are the dead of the Flood,” his intention was that

they existed, and were directed [to a cemetery].